Key result
The Centesys model was rated as significantly more realistic in simulating cardiac anatomy on ultrasound compared to the agar-based model (median score 5 vs 3.5, P=0.002).
Why the study?
Pericardiocentesis is potentially life-saving, but data were needed comparing low-cost simulation models—an agar-based model versus a novel model, Centesys—for pericardiocentesis training.
Does the Centesys simulation model improve learner confidence, perceived realism, and satisfaction compared to an agar-based model for pericardiocentesis training in emergency medicine residents?
RCT (n=20)
Open-label
Web-based randomisation
No
Does the Centesys simulation model improve learner confidence, perceived realism, and satisfaction compared to an agar-based model for pericardiocentesis training in emergency medicine residents?
Absolute Event Rate: 5% vs 3.5%
p-value: p=0.002
The novel Centesys simulation model for ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis provides superior realism, image quality, and learner satisfaction compared to a traditional agar-based model.
Centesys may enhance pericardiocentesis training satisfaction and realism; leaves open whether it improves clinical competence versus standard models.
Introduction: Pericardiocentesis is a potentially life-saving procedure. We compared two low-cost models—an agar-based model and a novel model, Centesys—in terms of ultrasound image quality and realism, effectiveness of the model, and learners’ confidence and satisfaction after training. Methods: In this pilot randomised 2x2 crossover trial stratified by physician seniority, participants were assigned to undergo pericardiocentesis training either with the agar-based or Centesys model first, followed by the other model. Participants were asked to rate their confidence in performing ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, clarity and realism of cardiac structures on ultrasound imaging, and satisfaction on a 7-point Likert scale before and after training with each model. Results: Twenty participants with median postgraduate year of 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.75–6) years were recruited. Pre-training, participants rated themselves a median score of 2.5 (IQR 2–4) for level of confidence in performing pericardiocentesis, which improved to 5 (IQR 4–6) post-training with Centesys (P=0.007). Centesys was recognised to be more realistic in simulating cardiac anatomy on ultrasound (median 5 [IQR 4–5] versus 3.5 [IQR 3–4], P=0.002) than the agar-based model. There was greater satisfaction with Centesys (median 5 [IQR 5–6] versus 4 [IQR 3.75–4], P<0.001). All 20 participants achieved successful insertion of a pericardial drain into the simulated pericardial sac with Centesys. Conclusion: Centesys achieved greater learner satisfaction as compared to the agar-based model, and was an effective tool for teaching ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis and drain insertion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Pericardiocentesis simulation training (n=20). Centesys (psyllium-based model) vs. Agar-based model was evaluated on Realism in simulating cardiac anatomy on ultrasound (7-point Likert scale) (p=0.002). The Centesys model was rated as significantly more realistic in simulating cardiac anatomy on ultrasound compared to the agar-based model (median score 5 vs 3.5, P=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: